Article: Road users failed SA: RTMC

[McSack]

It's the same reason we have so much crime and lawlessness. Just a different manifestation, we're a very aggressive nation, impatient, entitled, arrogant believe our **** don't stink, take shortcuts, etc. It's in everything that happens in this country.

If the laws are actually applied and this is done fairly and consistently, I'm sure we would see an attitude change fairly quickly

 

[2026]

This is the same as ZUma telling criminals to behave themselves.

lets tell the people to drive nicely. And when we do pull them over with their farked up cars loaded to the heavens, we write them a little ticket and send them on their merry little way. WTF?!

the car is farked and overloaded??

LEts pull over the drunk driver.. and write him a ticket.. if he doesn't pay me a krismaas.

Lets do nothing about drunk pedestrians, they are after all our voters

FAKnuts.

What do drunk pedestrians have to do poor holiday drivers?

 

[Sinbad]

What do drunk pedestrians have to do poor holiday drivers?

They form an unreasonably large percentage of the headcount.

 

[Mila]

What do drunk pedestrians have to do poor holiday drivers?

They form an unreasonably large percentage of the headcount.

This

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

They form an unreasonably large percentage of the headcount.

But then it's not the drunk voter's fault, it's obviously the driver who was speeding. Cos speed kills...

 

[Drunkard #1]

Aggressive overtaking eh? So in other words, the revenue collection hotspots with inappropriately low speed limits *cough*KZN*cough* caused half the drivers to travel dangerously slowly and the other half's blood to boil till they couldn't take it any more, and passed when it wasn't safe. I lay the blame for that squarely at the feet of government. People aren't unpredictable; if you tell them that their trip will take 2 hours longer than it reasonably should, for no good reason, they will get pissed of. If government doesn't realise the consequences of their obsession with [-]speed trapping[/-] revenue collection, then they have blood on their hands.

And yes, I consider travelling at an unreasonably slow pace a good reason to get pissed off. Someone that doesn't get pissed off is probably too brain-dead to safely be on the road anyway.

Then again, that situation only accounts for 20% of the problem. 40% of the problem are pedestrians, who I honestly couldn't care less about, and the last 40% are probably taxi accidents, where blame sits with government for their failure to regulate any aspect of that industry.

 

[Sherbang]

Maybe it's that we see government as having different roles. I don't see the role of government to be dictating to me, or anyone else, how to behave, what I can or can't do. My behaviour is my responsibility, my choices are my responsibility.
The government is there to protect me - so by all means, arrest and prosecute a drunken driver because you are protecting me by doing so but it's not the governments responsibility to ensure I don't drive drunk - that's my responsibility. You don't blame the government when someone gets behind the wheel drunk - you blame the drunken driver - their choice, their responsibility. If there was no government who would blame when people behave badly? The people behaving badly, that's who...

 

[Sinbad]

Maybe it's that we see government as having different roles. I don't see the role of government to be dictating to me, or anyone else, how to behave, what I can or can't do. My behaviour is my responsibility, my choices are my responsibility.
The government is there to protect me - so by all means, arrest and prosecute a drunken driver because you are protecting me by doing so but it's not the governments responsibility to ensure I don't drive drunk - that's my responsibility. You don't blame the government when someone gets behind the wheel drunk - you blame the drunken driver - their choice, their responsibility. If there was no government who would blame when people behave badly? The people behaving badly, that's who...

The government's role in this is to enforce the law where people choose to ignore it. Yes, it's their choice - but they get away with it scot free, which does nothing to encourage responsible behaviour. And by them cracking down harshly, they ARE protecting you and your family from idiots who lack social conscience or responsibility.

 

[HapticSimian]

Maybe it's that we see government as having different roles. I don't see the role of government to be dictating to me, or anyone else, how to behave, what I can or can't do. My behaviour is my responsibility, my choices are my responsibility.
The government is there to protect me - so by all means, arrest and prosecute a drunken driver because you are protecting me by doing so but it's not the governments responsibility to ensure I don't drive drunk - that's my responsibility. You don't blame the government when someone gets behind the wheel drunk - you blame the drunken driver - their choice, their responsibility. If there was no government who would blame when people behave badly? The people behaving badly, that's who...

...and more effective application of the laws we do have wouldn't see government better fulfilling this role? Nobody's advocating fascism.

A large proportion of society need to be governed, sadly.

 

[2026]

Aggressive overtaking eh? So in other words, the revenue collection hotspots with inappropriately low speed limits *cough*KZN*cough* caused half the drivers to travel dangerously slowly

Someone going the "inappropriate" speed limit is dangerous? I think the people who ignore said speed limit are to blame. Everyone got the memo that it's an 80 zone, no-one is expecting a 140KM/h to smash into the back of them.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Someone going the "inappropriate" speed limit is dangerous? I think the people who ignore said speed limit are to blame. Everyone got the memo that it's an 80 zone, no-one is expecting a 140KM/h to smash into the back of them.

Really? Everyone got the memo.

For everyone who lives in DBN, when you go up Fields Hill again, have a look at the speed signs at the top of the hill.

Speed limit on the M13 approaching Fields Hill is 100, it drops to 80 going up the hill, and USED to return to 100 at the top of the hill. It has instead now been dropped to 60. There is one and only ONE reason this has been done, to generate more fine money, since the other side of the freeway is 100, dropping to 80 just before the top of the hill.

 

[2026]

Maybe it's that we see government as having different roles. I don't see the role of government to be dictating to me, or anyone else, how to behave, what I can or can't do. My behaviour is my responsibility, my choices are my responsibility.
The government is there to protect me - so by all means, arrest and prosecute a drunken driver because you are protecting me by doing so but it's not the governments responsibility to ensure I don't drive drunk - that's my responsibility. You don't blame the government when someone gets behind the wheel drunk - you blame the drunken driver - their choice, their responsibility. If there was no government who would blame when people behave badly? The people behaving badly, that's who...

Problem is that when things do go horribly wrong, some innocents lose lives. People want to try and protect those innocents and believe it's the governments job to rather prevent such things happening in the first place. Not entirely unreasonable ask.

 

[2026]

Really? Everyone got the memo.

For everyone who lives in DBN, when you go up Fields Hill again, have a look at the speed signs at the top of the hill.

Speed limit on the M13 approaching Fields Hill is 100, it drops to 80 going up the hill, and USED to return to 100 at the top of the hill. It has instead now been dropped to 60. There is one and only ONE reason this has been done, to generate more fine money, since the other side of the freeway is 100, dropping to 80 just before the top of the hill.

You can see the sign, as a non-durbanite visiting, I would follow the sign and not really expect others to be pissed off at my obeying the law.

 

[ToxicBunny]

You can see the sign, as a non-durbanite visiting, I would follow the sign and not really expect others to be pissed off at my obeying the law.

I would have been pissed until I actually saw the sign myself.

I live in the city. For the last how-ever-many years it has been 100 at the top of the hill. As a visitor I would expect you to look out for signs, but as a resident I know what the speed limit in areas is and this then causes a dangerous situation as I would be accelerating up to 100 and you would be breaking to 60.

I'm talking specifically about these 2 signs (they're 100 on the Streetview link) : https://maps.google.co.za/?ll=-29.7...=Qz2LIpIBvXn1S8FbOyrurg&cbp=12,240.36,,0,8.48

As a resident of the city who travels up the hill at least 3 or 4 times a week, I would have looked at the sign a few times then known the speed limit and not looked at them again.

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

You can see the sign, as a non-durbanite visiting, I would follow the sign and not really expect others to be pissed off at my obeying the law.

They may as well drop it to 10 km/h then, so that people like you can just go about obeying it without questioning it. Just because it is 'the law', doesn't necessarily make it rational. There is absolutely no good reason to have a lower speed limit on a downhill than an uphill.

 

[Sherbang]

Problem is that when things do go horribly wrong, some innocents lose lives. People want to try and protect those innocents and believe it's the governments job to rather prevent such things happening in the first place. Not entirely unreasonable ask.

Well then lets just ban driving, make owning cars illegal and there will be no more road deaths and you can all say how wonderful our government is for preventing road deaths. There comes a point where you have to hold people responsible for their actions. How often does someone get into a car drunk, while his friends watch him do it and don't ostracise him in any way, the bar where he/she just spent their money getting drunk watches them drive off, doing nothing. It's not government education that will change peoples behaviour, it's being humiliated and ostracised by ones friends and community that will change behaviour. People and communities need to stand up and take responsibility and stop expecting the government to control our lives and decisions and dictate our choices. If you run a pub take away a drunkards car keys, like that will ever happen - oh no, it's not our responsibility, it's the governments.

 

[2026]

I would have been pissed until I actually saw the sign myself.

I live in the city. For the last how-ever-many years it has been 100 at the top of the hill. As a visitor I would expect you to look out for signs, but as a resident I know what the speed limit in areas is and this then causes a dangerous situation as I would be accelerating up to 100 and you would be breaking to 60.

I'm talking specifically about these 2 signs (they're 100 on the Streetview link) : https://maps.google.co.za/?ll=-29.7...=Qz2LIpIBvXn1S8FbOyrurg&cbp=12,240.36,,0,8.48

As a resident of the city who travels up the hill at least 3 or 4 times a week, I would have looked at the sign a few times then known the speed limit and not looked at them again.

Only reason i can see that there would be a lowing to 60KM/h there is that if people are crossing that road?

 

[Mike Hoxbig]

If you run a pub take away a drunkards car keys, like that will ever happen - oh no, it's not our responsibility, it's the governments.

That's theft. Yep, great example, prevent one crime by committing another. Why not employ police to cover the exit routes of all major drinking hotspots? Maybe it's just easier to blame it on speeding and put them behind speed cameras instead.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Only reason i can see that there would be a lowing to 60KM/h there is that if people are crossing that road?

No, its a Motorway, its ALWAYS been 100. There is a bridge about 100m behind that photo that people can use, and a bridge maybe 200m further up the road that they can use.

There is no other reason for the speed change, than to nail unsuspecting motorists and increase the fine revenue for the city.

 

[Sinbad]

Well then lets just ban driving, make owning cars illegal and there will be no more road deaths and you can all say how wonderful our government is for preventing road deaths. There comes a point where you have to hold people responsible for their actions. How often does someone get into a car drunk, while his friends watch him do it and don't ostracise him in any way, the bar where he/she just spent their money getting drunk watches them drive off, doing nothing. It's not government education that will change peoples behaviour, it's being humiliated and ostracised by ones friends and community that will change behaviour. People and communities need to stand up and take responsibility and stop expecting the government to control our lives and decisions and dictate our choices. If you run a pub take away a drunkards car keys, like that will ever happen - oh no, it's not our responsibility, it's the governments.

You'll go to any lengths to get the cANCer off the hook for anything, won't you?

I agree though, that community SHOULD stand up... but they don't and that is the reality of the situation. You and I do not have the power to enforce the law. For that, we pay tax to an elected government. IT'S THEIR JOB to step in where we can't. If the government's job is NOT to control criminal behaviour, I ask again why we have a police force and NPA?